Bears' offseason: Trade Justin Fields or No. 1 NFL draft pick?

The lower end was the Rams' deal to move up for Goff; while they had to send the most because they came from the furthest down, the Rams only sent two first-round picks and didn't have to forego a top-10 selection. This might be a product of how the league saw those various prospects; Griffin was coming off a Heisman-winning season at Baylor, while there were concerns about Goff's frame, hands and ability to work in an NFL-style offense. The Rams only paid approximately 1.1 times of what they received on the Johnson chart to land Goff.

Which teams might be interested in trading for the No. 1 pick?

My instinct is the first pick in the 2024 draft would come in closer to the high end than the low end of these recent deals. What that means in terms of capital depends on the team making the deal and where it's trading up from. Let's run through a few teams that would have an interest in calling the Bears and try to use history to estimate what they would need to send, starting with Washington and New England, which own the next two picks and have a need at quarterback:

2. Washington Commanders

This would only make sense if the Bears were going to make a second trade with the No. 2 pick and felt like they could bluff the Commanders into paying an extra premium to move up one spot. I don't think that's likely, and dealing the top pick would be more valuable than the combination of moving down a spot and then trading out of the second selection. At best, Chicago could get back the second-rounder it sent to Washington in the Montez Sweat deal.

Proposed trade for the No. 1 pick: Pick Nos. 2, 40 and 163.

3. New England Patriots

Jumping the Commanders should cost the Patriots much more, given that they'll be competing against the teams drafting behind them in terms of what they're willing to give up to move up. We haven't really seen a trade like this in recent years, but remember that the Giants sent first-, third- and fifth-round picks in 2004 when they swapped Philip Rivers for Eli Manning.

Given that the Manning deal was for a player who wasn't willing to play for the Chargers and came in the old CBA era when rookie deals were more expensive, moving up from No. 3 should cost more. The Bears would still be in position to draft the non-quarterback of their choosing here.

Proposed trade for the No. 1 pick: Pick Nos. 3 and 34 and 2025 first- and third-round picks.

4. Arizona Cardinals

This would be more complicated given the presence of quarterback Kyler Murray, who could presumably go to another party as part of this deal. I'll save the three-way trades for the mock draft column I put together every April. The Cardinals have six picks in the top 90, so if the Bears wanted to get a significant return of picks in this draft to avoid pushing the return into the future, the Cards could make sense.

Proposed trade for the No. 1 pick (and a 2025 fourth-rounder): Pick Nos. 4, 27, 35, 90 and a 2025 second-round pick.

6. New York Giants

Unlike the Cardinals, the Giants would presumably keep Daniel Jones on as a bridge quarterback; his contract is guaranteed next season and won't have much trade value. This is probably about as low as the Bears can go without insisting on three first-round picks as a bare minimum of return.

Proposed trade for the No. 1 pick: Pick Nos. 6, 39, 47 and a 2025 first-round pick.

7. Tennessee Titans

The Bears wouldn't have much use for Will Levis with Fields in tow, so again, this would be a team dealing away its quarterback to go somewhere else. Where their offer gets unique, though, is by including Jeffery Simmons, a superstar defensive tackle who would give Matt Eberflus the interior disruptor his defense desperately needs. Simmons would be worth one or two first-round picks on his own.

Proposed trade for the No. 1 pick: Simmons, pick Nos. 7 and 38 and a 2025 second-round pick.

8. Atlanta Falcons

This one could be fun. A.J. Terrell? Drake London? Kyle Pitts? I'm not sure the Falcons want to deal Terrell or London, and Pitts still doesn't look to be 100 percent after playing with a surgically repaired knee last season, so maybe there's not a perfect fit in terms of players.

Right now, there are two quarterbacks, three receivers and two left tackle prospects in the top tier. Jayden Daniels likely would jump ahead of one of the receivers or tackles, but the Bears can't be sure of that, so they would need a premium to move down any lower than No. 7.

Proposed trade for the No. 1 pick: Pick Nos. 8 and 43, 2025 first- and third-round picks and a 2026 first-round pick.

12. Denver Broncos

The Broncos are already missing years of draft capital and are down multiple picks in this draft, so they almost have to include players to move up from No. 12 to No. 1. The only player who would move the needle is star cornerback Pat Surtain II, who might seem like a luxury in a defense that plays as much zone as the Bears.

Chicago might also not want to pay two cornerbacks as much as Surtain and Jaylon Johnson will combine to get on their next contracts, but if Eberflus wants to field the NFL's best defense, getting a top-three cornerback isn't going to hurt.

Proposed trade for the No. 1 pick: Surtain, pick No. 12 and 2025 second- and third-round picks.

13. Las Vegas Raiders

It's tough to imagine the Bears going much lower than No. 13, at which point they're just adding draft picks without any firm knowledge of where they're going to land or what will be left on the board when the first pick they're getting in this deal actually arrives. I can see making a speculative trade with the Raiders and hoping, like the Panthers, they end up moving down and still landing a top-four pick in the 2025 draft for being patient. I'm just not sure that really makes sense with keeping Fields.

Proposed trade for the No. 1 pick: Pick Nos. 13, 44 and 77, 2025 first- and third-round picks and 2026 first- and second-round picks.

Barring something truly unexpected -- like the Jaguars, who own pick No. 17, making quarterback Trevor Lawrence available -- there isn't a trade partner after No. 13 that makes sense. And even within the teams I highlighted, I'm not sure it really passes muster to rack up first-round pick after first-round pick when Chicago would want to start competing for a division title in 2024. The sweet spot for the Bears is in that No. 6-to-No. 8 range, where they can still land a premium player on offense who will help Fields right now, add a second-rounder who should be in the starting mix next season and replace the lost pick from the Sweat deal and significant draft capital in the years to come.

Should the Bears try to add a player in the deal to accelerate the rebuild?

If it's the right player, sure, but just adding proven commodities doesn't make a ton of sense when much of the value with draft picks is adding talent on cost-controlled deals. With Fields and Johnson about to get significantly more expensive, among others, hitting on players making a fraction of what starters get paid in free agency is how teams build an elite roster. More on that in a minute.

The top of this draft generally aligns with what the Bears need if they don't move on from Fields: A franchise left tackle should be at the top of the list, followed by a pass-rusher and a second wide receiver to play across from Moore. Looking at the top 16 players in Mel Kiper's most recent mock draft, you'll find four quarterbacks, six wide receivers, two tackles, two edge rushers and two cornerbacks.

Last year, there wasn't a wide receiver with a top-10 grade, so it made sense for the Bears to target Moore as part of the trade with the Panthers. This year, they can use their pick at wherever they land from a trade down (as well as with their own pick at No. 9) and add two top prospects at those respective positions. I'd also expect them to be flexible moving around after a deal, so it would hardly be shocking if they traded down from No. 1 and then back up to ensure they landed one of the left tackles.

With that being said, Poles might prefer some combination of a premium young player and draft capital to pure picks. He already has established a willingness to deal picks for what he deemed to be proven commodities in Sweat and wide receiver Chase Claypool, so it's hardly out of the question he would make a move for players entering or in the prime of their careers as part of this deal.

Given that the Bears need to fill key positions, it's tough to see many of the teams listed above moving players who would qualify as young standouts outside of Simmons and Surtain, whom I mentioned. The Cardinals aren't moving offensive tackle Paris Johnson Jr. after one year. The Giants aren't dealing left tackle Andrew Thomas, although defensive tackle Dexter Lawrence II could be plausible. The various Falcons players don't really fit for one reason or another outside of Terrell. I'm not sure the Raiders could stomach trading away edge rusher Maxx Crosby after their excellent finish to the season.

Trading for young players without much of a significant track record of success wouldn't be preferable to adding players who will be cost-controlled via the draft for the next few years. Wideout Jerry Jeudy isn't an asset on his fifth-year option. Receiver Treylon Burks was just fine as a rookie in 2022 and then never seemed to get healthy last season. Pass-rusher Azeez Ojulari has missed chunks of the past two seasons with injuries. Those guys might pan out in Chicago, but given that they're all at least halfway done with their rookie deals, the Bears are better off taking the picks and drafting a guy Poles likes.

What would happen next with Fields?

How much flexibility do the Bears want to move on from Fields if he doesn't develop further? It's tough to imagine them turning down the opportunity to take quarterbacks at the top of the 2023 and 2024 drafts and then moving on from Fields, but it's also hard to look at what he has done and feel entirely confident he's worthy of a contract extension with multiple years of guarantees.

The simple way for Chicago to start is to pick up Fields' fifth-year option, which would guarantee him a projected $22 million for the 2025 season. He would be owed just over $25 million combined for the 2024 and 2025 seasons, which would be too much for a backup and a bargain for a competent NFL starter. Picking up the option also gives the Bears an extra year of runway if and when they want to negotiate an extension with him.

If they wanted to trade him after 2024, they would need to find someone willing to take on that $22 million salary for 2025, which would be tough depending on how he performs. With that in mind, they might prefer to negotiate a deal where he gets some of the 2025 money as a 2024 bonus, even if it doesn't come in the form of a significant raise. If the Bears pay Fields a $10 million bonus and base salaries of $5 million in 2024 and $10 million in 2025, they would eat more money up front, but they would have more flexibility in moving him after 2024 if he fails to take that next step forward. (They could also choose to eat some portion of that money in 2025 instead.)

What if the Bears want to make a more serious commitment?

There aren't many comparables for first-round picks in the slotted draft era who signed extensions this early in their careers without having played at a higher level than Fields has over the past few seasons. Guys in this range were Mariota, Jameis Winston and Blake Bortles; the first two played out their fifth-year options, while Bortles signed a three-year extension after Year 4 and then was released after one additional season.

The one obvious comparison would be Ryan Tannehill. While the former Dolphins starter had been healthy through his first three years, he had taken tons of sacks and generally been a below-average passer by most rate metrics before taking some strides forward in Year 3. Tannehill didn't offer Fields' rushing value, but he was better as a passer, if not necessarily entirely convincing that he deserved a significant extension.

The Dolphins split the difference between a top-tier deal and letting Tannehill play out his fifth-year option. (Keep in mind that fifth-year options were guaranteed only for injury then, while they're fully guaranteed now.) After Year 3, they gave Tannehill a four-year, $77 million deal that guaranteed him $21.5 million over the next two seasons. Essentially, they guaranteed his fifth-year option and an additional $3.3 million for the right to keep him on the roster for two years. They then had the right to pay him about $74 million over the four seasons after that option, with virtually all of that money unguaranteed from year to year.

Those figures are all in 2014 cash, which might as well be a century ago given how NFL contracts have risen. Let's put those numbers into 2024's cap, which we'll project at $243 million. If the Bears wanted to emulate that deal with Fields, they would pick up his fifth-year option and then sign him to a four-year, $139.2 million extension. They would guarantee him $29.7 million for 2024 and 2025 and then have the right to pay him $134.8 million between 2026 and 2029, almost all of which would be unguaranteed.

Is it as simple as just adjusting for inflation? Not really. Fields' camp would want more than the $40 million average annual salary Daniel Jones got on his extension last year, even if most of that money wouldn't be guaranteed in Fields' pact. The fifth-year option being fully guaranteed also reduces the team's leverage, whereas the Dolphins could negotiate against Tannehill knowing they could pick up the option and then change their mind if he stayed healthy. The structure, though, would be similar to the Tannehill deal; pick up the fifth-year option, guarantee him a little bit more, lock him in for two more seasons and have the right to pay him more down the line on a relatively team-friendly extension if he proves to be a star without going up to the next tier of quarterback and handing out a Kyler Murray-sized contract.

What sort of value would the Bears land from keeping Fields and trading the pick?

We can only estimate what the return would be. There are lots of assumptions we have to make. How good will Fields be? What sort of return will the picks offer? Where will the future picks even land? The Bears get only one shot at this decision, and the picks they make will determine whether it was a success, but we have to consider the most likely outcome as of now. (If you're squeamish about probability or process, you might want to scroll down here.)

Let's start with the picks. While it's true that draft selections are hardly a guarantee of landing an impact player, the fact that those picks come with guaranteed low-cost deals makes even the chances of drafting a starter valuable. If a team comes away with a special-teamer and a backup who plays 250 snaps per year in the second or third round, it's basically breaking even. Anything above that is pure profit. The 49ers are getting elite-level production from Brock Purdy, which usually costs about $50 million or more per season on veteran deals, from a player making $870,000 in 2023.

Let's try to estimate what the return will be. First, we have to pick an offer. I'll go with the Falcons trade above. We'll estimate that all of the future picks land in the middle of their respective rounds, so the future first-rounder will be the 16th selection, while the future third-rounder comes in as the 80th pick. I'm not going to discount the value of the future picks, because while that might matter in terms of a general manager's job security, it shouldn't matter in terms of improving an organization long term. If anything, given that teams tend to discount the value of future picks in trades, those selections are probably undervalued in the big picture.

To estimate the value of each selection, I've used Ben Baldwin's analysis of the surplus value of each pick in the draft, as tied to the percentage of the salary cap. Baldwin's chart doesn't include quarterback value, which should be instructive here, because we're not projecting the Bears to draft a quarterback if they keep Fields. (They could trade the selections for a quarterback in the future or have things break like they did here, where they trade for a future Round 1 selection and then use that for a quarterback, so we're probably undervaluing these picks a bit.) I'll also look back through history from 2011 to 2021 and use Pro Football Reference's Approximate Value to try to identify what the average player drafted in a one-pick range of that selection looks like, just to put some faces to otherwise nameless future draft picks.

• Pick No. 8 (Aldon Smith, Vic Beasley, Leonard Floyd): Expected surplus value of $33,562,000

• Pick No. 43 (Kyle Rudolph, Laviska Shenault, Johnthan Banks): $26,481,000

• 2025 first-rounder (Derwin James, Taylor Decker, A.J. Terrell): $34,920,000

• 2025 third-rounder (Fabien Moreau, Leonard Hankerson, Adolphus Washington): $15,714,000

• 2026 first-rounder (Derwin James, Taylor Decker, A.J. Terrell): $34,920,000

Those picks have a surplus value of $145.6 million over their first four years, without considering a possible fifth-year option. That's their value after subtracting what the Bears would pay those players, which will be fully guaranteed for the first-rounders and partially guaranteed for the second- and third-rounders.

What about Fields? That's the trickier part. We know he'll be a bargain in 2024, when he's projected to make sub-backup money at $3.2 million. We have to assume Chicago would pick up his 2025 fifth-year option for an additional $22 million if it doesn't draft a quarterback after the season.

Beyond that? It's difficult to say, because there's obviously some selection bias involved, especially if the Bears don't hand him the Tannehill-esque extension from above. If Fields waits for his deal and breaks out next season, he'll get a massive contract. If he doesn't break out, the team likely will let him go without committing anything beyond 2025.

What's Fields' production worth? The closest comp I keep coming back to is Daniel Jones, whose QBR over the first five years of his career (54.1) is eight points ahead of Fields' first three seasons (46.1). Both derive significant value from their legs, but they also take too many sacks. Neither has great help, although Jones has a legitimate left tackle in Andrew Thomas, while Fields has a No. 1 wideout in Moore. Fields has missed 20% of the starts in his career because of injury, while Jones is at 27%, which might make up some of the disparity in their QBR.

Jones landed $82 million guaranteed over two years to re-sign with the Giants. Derek Carr, to use a different sort of quarterback, got $70 million over two years in practical guarantees last offseason to join the Saints. Locking up average to below-average quarterback play cost about $35 million to $40 million in 2023. That translates to about $41 million per year on the 2024 cap.

Let's say a quarterback with Fields' level of production would be valued on the open market as being worth $41 million per season over the next four years. If the Bears can get him signed to a version of the Tannehill deal where he gets $40 million unguaranteed in 2025 and 2026, they would pay him $105.2 million and get $164 million in production. That's $58.8 million in surplus value on a Fields deal, most of which comes in 2024. You can see the value of having a quarterback on a rookie deal, something we'll hit in the next section.

Add all that up and we get $204.4 million in value from our first and more complicated path of holding on to Fields and trading away the No. 1 overall pick for multiple first-rounders. There are lots of estimates in that analysis, so I wouldn't get hung up on the specific number, but this is more about the general mindset of what this sort of trade might end up producing for Chicago.

OPTION 2: DRAFT A QB, TRADE FIELDS

Pick North Carolina's Drake Maye or USC's Caleb Williams. I'm not concerned about which quarterback the Bears end up landing, but in this scenario, they wouldn't be moving forward with Fields under center. They'd draft a quarterback at No. 1, and Fields would go somewhere else, likely for draft capital.

Let's start there: What would a Fields trade look like? When ESPN's Jeremy Fowler and Courtney Cronin took a close look at the Fields conundrum in early January and asked league evaluators what Chicago could expect in a trade for Fields, they found that the franchise might expect to land a second- or third-round pick. I wonder whether the Bears might get one guaranteed pick and a second conditional selection based on Fields' play, as the Packers did in the Aaron Rodgers deal last offseason.

There aren't a lot of great comps on which to base a Fields trade, especially if we stick in the slotted draft era from 2011 onward. In 2019, Josh Rosen was traded for a second-round pick after one disappointing year in Miami. Blaine Gabbert was benched in Year 3 and sent to the 49ers in 2014 for a sixth-rounder. In 2022, Deshaun Watson signed an extension and was then sent to the Browns after holding out for a year in a trade involving three first-round picks. That eliminated a spot for Baker Mayfield, who stuck around on the roster before being shipped to the Panthers for a conditional fifth-round pick.

None of those quarterbacks fit Fields' situation. The closest player is probably Sam Darnold, who showed some flashes of competence amid mostly mediocrity over his first three seasons before the Jets decided to use a first-round pick on Zach Wilson in 2021. The Jets sent Darnold to the Panthers for second-, fourth- and sixth-round picks, with Carolina then picking up Darnold's fifth-year option. Fields has been better than Darnold, but I'm not sure many people think the Panthers offered appropriate value in that Darnold trade. With quarterbacks, however, it takes only one team to defy expectations.

It looks like there are five teams that would be considered primary candidates for a Fields trade. I'm not including the Tennessee Titans or Minnesota Vikings in that group. Tennessee fired Mike Vrabel and seems set moving forward with 2023 second-rounder Will Levis. Vikings general manager Kwesi Adofo-Mensah has been comfortable trading within the NFC North, but it's difficult to imagine the Bears trading Fields to a rival. Let's look at those five teams and what might make sense in an offer:

Atlanta Falcons

The Falcons have the eighth pick in the draft, as we discussed earlier, and their young players are too valuable to go back to the Bears in a Fields deal. The Falcons have their own second- (40) and third-round picks (74). They also have a pick coming from the Jaguars as part of the Calvin Ridley deal, which will be a second-rounder (48) if Ridley signs an extension with the Jags or a third-rounder (79) if Ridley doesn't re-sign with the team. I wonder if Atlanta would be more likely to send the 48th pick if it lands it from the Jaguars; if not, the two third-round selections might be the middle ground that makes sense.

Denver Broncos

After benching and presumably cutting Russell Wilson, the Broncos have a hole at quarterback. Jarrett Stidham has only $1 million guaranteed in salary for 2024, and the Broncos have one of the oldest rosters in football. They're also down their second-round pick as part of the Sean Payton trade and dealt away third- and fifth-round picks to move up in last year's draft, which makes a deal more difficult. Denver could send its second-rounder in 2025 as part of a trade, but my instinct is it probably would draft a quarterback as opposed to trading for Fields.

Las Vegas Raiders

With Antonio Pierce getting the head-coaching job, the Raiders could stick with Aidan O'Connell, a fifth-round pick last year, as their quarterback in 2024. Given that Pierce and new general manager Tom Telesco inherited O'Connell from the prior regime, though, they could look to make a more significant addition at the position. I feel confident former team owner Al Davis would have loved Fields for his ability to create out of structure and win passing downfield; would Mark Davis feel the same way?

The Raiders sorely need to build a core of young talent after missing on so many picks during the Jon Gruden era, but they do have their first five selections in April's draft and a full complement of 2025 picks. The Bears would probably be looking at pick No. 44 as their ideal return for Fields. If Poles really wanted another receiver, would he ask the Raiders about Davante Adams to give his new quarterback a one-two punch with Adams and Moore?

Pittsburgh Steelers

All options have to be on the table for the Steelers after Kenny Pickett's dire 2023 season. The Steelers made it to the playoffs, but their best quarterback was likely third-stringer Mason Rudolph. Mike Tomlin brought in Arthur Smith to be the new offensive coordinator, and Smith's downfield play-action passing attack and quarterback run game seem to jibe with what Fields does best. The Steelers have an extra selection in the fourth round and pick 51st in the second round.

New England Patriots

Finally, the Patriots and new coach Jerod Mayo have to weigh their options under center. They almost certainly will decline Mac Jones' fifth-year option and consider drafting a quarterback at No. 3, with Jayden Daniels as the early favorite. The Pats could go in a different direction by using their pick on wideout Marvin Harrison Jr. or one of the draft's top left tackles before using a later pick to trade for Fields. The 34th pick might be too rich for a Fields deal, so the Bears might have to settle for the 68th selection and something else, like a 2025 pick or a conditional selection, to get the value they want in a deal.

Ideally, the Bears would love to stoke a bidding war between these teams. In reality, it's going to be tough. Kiper has four quarterbacks coming off the board in Round 1 of his most recent mock draft, and it wouldn't be shocking if Bo Nix joined as No. 5. Jimmy Garoppolo will be a free agent, and the Patriots could turn to their former backup as a starting option. One of these teams could sign free agent Kirk Cousins if he doesn't go back to the Vikings. A Fields trade might have to wait until after the draft, and the Bears won't have much leverage after using the top pick on a passer themselves.

Because we want to compare the Bears' options in terms of relative value, let's go with the Raiders and assume they'll send the 44th pick to the Bears. By Baldwin's chart, that pick is worth about $26.1 million in surplus value, so we can start our return on this strategy there.

What will make or break this decision is the player the Bears land at quarterback. Maye and Williams are regarded as high-end prospects, although Williams didn't have quite as dominant of a final season in college as many hoped. Trevor Lawrence's inconsistent start to his NFL career also shows that even upper-echelon, no-doubt quarterback prospects can struggle for stretches of their careers.

Fourteen quarterbacks were taken in the top five of the draft between 2011 and 2020. In order of impact over their first four seasons, the average quarterback from that group is either Tua Tagovailoa or Mayfield. Get a little more optimistic and you're looking at Jared Goff and Carson Wentz, who were good enough to earn contract extensions with their teams, albeit ones that ended poorly for each of those franchises. It's hard to land a superstar, even with a pick at the top of the draft. Remember that so many of the league's best quarterbacks -- Patrick Mahomes, Lamar Jackson, Josh Allen and Jalen Hurts -- were either drafted later in the first round or on Day 2.

Let's use Goff as our expected return. The average annual salary on Goff's second contract was $33.5 million in a year in which the salary cap was $188.2 million, so that's 17.8% of the cap. Translate that to 2024 and it's $43.2 million per year. Let's use that as our estimate of what a No. 1 pick at quarterback such as Maye or Williams would be worth in terms of market value per season. That's $172.8 million over four seasons.

The Bears are projected to pay $38.3 million over the first four years of the top pick's contract. Leaving aside the fifth-year option, and being a little optimistic about the expectation for this quarterback, we would expect them to net $134.5 million in surplus value from drafting a passer with the first overall selection.

Combined with the value from the Fields trade, that adds up to $160.6 million. Yes, by this analysis, the Bears would be better off holding on to Fields and trading the No. 1 pick for multiple first-rounders than they would be drafting a quarterback and trading away Fields for a second-round pick. If you're surprised, well, so am I: I thought it would be an easy victory in favor of the Maye or Williams route.

Of course, there are a lot of assumptions being made here, and if you don't agree with the assumptions, the analysis changes. Fields might not be a $40 million quarterback. The Bears might not get amazing offers to trade down. You might think Baldwin's model overrates those first- and second-round picks. (I will say the values are generally in line with what teams have paid for draft picks when they've implicitly valued second-rounders by cash in trades, with the Brock Osweiler salary dump as the most notable example.) The Bears aren't expecting to get Goff or Mayfield when they use the pick on a quarterback; they're counting on the next Joe Burrow or Andrew Luck and will evaluate the value of that quarterback accordingly, even if that's too optimistic given what history tells us.

It doesn't take too much equivocation in either direction for those values to be closer. My conclusion would be to rely on what Poles sees as a scout. If the Bears truly, deeply love Maye or Williams and see either of them as transcendent prospects, they should make the move to trade Fields and draft the quarterback. If they see them as solid prospects whose only leg up on Fields is cost control, though, they should keep Fields and make the move to trade down, as long as they are still in position to grab an impact wide receiver or left tackle elsewhere in the top 10.

But there's a solution I definitely would not pursue ...

OPTION 3: KEEP THE PICK, DRAFT A NON-QB

Absolutely not. Even if you think there's a once-in-a-generation wide receiver or offensive player in this class, a combination of misplaced confidence and cratering value would make taking a non-quarterback with the No. 1 pick a disastrous idea.

Let's say the Bears love Harrison. Do top-five picks at wide receiver turn into guaranteed All-Pros? No. The wideouts taken in the top five between 2011 and 2020 include A.J. Green, Amari Cooper, Sammy Watkins, Corey Davis and Justin Blackmon. Expand that out to the prior decade and you can add Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald and Calvin Johnson, but you also get Braylon Edwards and Charles Rogers. The last wideout to selected with the No. 1 pick was Keyshawn Johnson in 1996; he had a good career and was a three-time Pro Bowler, but he might have been the fourth-best wideout from that class behind Marvin Harrison Sr., Terrell Owens and Muhsin Muhammad.

This isn't just a product of wide receivers, either. There are can't-miss players who look like generational prospects at their position who end up disappointing as pros because of injuries, bad landing spots or overly optimistic evaluations. Defensive end Chase Young and cornerback Jeff Okudah were top-three picks in 2020. The Giants chose running back Saquon Barkley over Jackson and Allen. Defensive lineman Solomon Thomas and running back Leonard Fournette were top-four picks in 2017. A top-five pick gives a team the best chance of landing an All-Pro talent, but it can't just write future success in ink for the top player drafted at a position.

In the absolute best-case scenario, let's say Marvin Harrison Jr. is the next Justin Jefferson or Ja'Marr Chase. Right now, the top of the wide receiver market is Tyreek Hill's deal for $30 million per season. I expect Chase and Jefferson to approach $35 million per year on their new extensions. Over four years, that's $140 million in surplus value.

The Bears would need to pay Harrison $38.3 million over the first four years of his deal, so that would leave $101.7 million in surplus value, and that's if he's guaranteed to become a franchise-caliber wide receiver. That's not close to either of our scenarios where the Bears either trade the top pick for multiple first-rounders or draft a quarterback there. More realistically, the expected value for taking Harrison at No. 1 is probably closer to $55 million.

If the Bears are absolutely infatuated with Harrison, there's a simple way to get their cake and eat it, too: Trade down with the Patriots at No. 3. The Pats will undoubtedly want to get ahead of the Commanders and ensure they land their pick of the class' quarterbacks. Washington is not going to be drafting a wide receiver at No. 2. Move down from No. 1, pick up some extra draft capital and then grab Harrison.

The good news for the Bears is they're in an overwhelmingly valuable position already. Whether they choose to move forward with Fields or draft a quarterback, holding the top pick in a draft with multiple top quarterback prospects leaves them in position to realize a franchise-altering return. For whatever mistakes Poles has made during his time as general manager, landing this pick as part of the Bryce Young trade is enough to compensate and erase just about anything else he has gotten wrong.

The bad news is teams don't win titles because of surplus value or landing draft picks. They have to nail their evaluation, make the right decision at quarterback and surround that player accordingly. If the Bears pass on Williams or Maye to stick with Fields and he doesn't blossom, the story won't be about Poles amassing a ton of first-round picks. It will be about the former general manager who passed on C.J. Stroud in 2023 and another franchise quarterback in 2024 to stick with a guy who never made it. Likewise, if they trade Fields and he breaks out, the same fans who were picketing outside the facility to keep Fields earlier this offseason will rue the one who got away. Chicago has put itself in great shape to transform its franchise. Now, Poles needs to stick the landing.